학술논문
형사소송법 개정의 문제점
이용수 168
- 영문명
- The drawbacks of the change in the Criminal Procedure Law - the trial section
- 발행기관
- 한국형사법학회
- 저자명
- 이용구(Lee, Yong-Gu)
- 간행물 정보
- 『형사법연구』형사법연구 제23권 제1호, 57~115쪽, 전체 59쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2011.02.27
9,880원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
After the change of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2007, some problems occurred as a result of operating the criminal trial in the quasi-prosecution procedure, the criminal discovery, the presentence investigation, the sentencing hearing, and etc. First, in the quasi-prosecution procedure, although the crime was expanded to all crimes, the relator was not regarded as the applicant. Also, by putting the quasi-prosecution procedure case under the jurisdiction of the high court, the procedure became inconvenient for the applicant as the quasi-prosecution procedure case was not handled quickly. The fact that institution and support of the public action was being managed passively by the prosecutor as he took charge of it after the decision of the indictment was another problem in the quasi-prosecution procedure. In addition, the criminal discovery had many problems. It did not include the criminal discovery in the stage of the investigation, and the controversy considering whether the list of the record of investigation was unintentionally included in the discovery was still remained. The worse problem was that the sanctions used when the prosecutor did not perform the decision of discovery were much insufficient. Moreover, the presentence investigation and the sentencing hearing had not been thorough enough to carry out those investigations since the sentencing guidelines were established as the legislation was not made when changing the Criminal Procedure Law in 2007. Lastly, the protecting of the crime victims and the victims' participation in criminal proceedings were the weakest parts in the reform of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2007. Considering these parts, there are already many amendments submitted to The National Assembly, and the amendment made by the committee for the reform of the Criminal Procedure, composed of people appointed by the Korean Criminal Law Association, is also focusing on these parts. This paper is proposing the direction of reforms after reviewing the amendments. To begin with, because the purpose of the quasi-prosecution procedure includes controlling the prosecutor's discretion of the indictment as well as protecting the crime victims, it is right to consider the relator as the applicant, and it should be examined to assign the jurisdiction to the district courts as the quasi-prosecution procedure case increases. The most important one is that the person of the institution and support of the public action should be the lawyer, not the prosecutor, as it was in early days. Next, the criminal discovery about the record of investigation should be adopted to substantially guarantee the suspects' the right of the attorney's assistance in the stage of the investigation. It is also suggested that it needs to be clarified that the list of the record of investigation is the object of the discovery. Moreover, there are some suggestions to impose sanctions toward the disobedience of the discovery decision of the courts. When the disobedience which is about the police report that should surely include the discovery brings negative effects on the accused exerting the right of defendant, it can be considered the ground of the dismissal of public prosecution. However, when it does not, the courts need to read documents in advance, offer certain amount of time for the prosecutor to fulfill the decision of discovery, and dismiss the public prosecution to impose sanctions toward the disobedience. In addition to those methods, in other cases, it can be appropriate to the courts to insist fulfilling the decision of discovery through the interruption of the trial. In matters of the presentence investigation, because the courts can be the only subject of the investigation, it is adequate to make the investigation of a probation officer and a sentencing investigator coexist.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 재정신청제도
Ⅲ. 증거개시제도
Ⅳ. 양형자료조사 및 양형심리제도
Ⅴ. 피해자보호 및 피해자참가제도
Ⅵ. 결론
[참고문헌]
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 양형조사법안에 대한 비판적 고찰
- 형사조정제도의 바람직한 시행을 위한 범죄피해자보호법 개선안
- 군형법 제92조의5 추행죄의 위헌성과 폐지론
- 한국형사법학회 형사소송법 개정안에 대한 논평
- 자살관여행위의 가벌성 근거
- 절도미수ㆍ기수범이 재물탈환항거 등의 목적으로 폭행ㆍ협박한 행위의 형사책임
- 착오로 송금된 금전을 임의로 소비한 경우와 재산범죄
- 사인의 현행범인 체포와 추적과정에 수반되는 주거침입죄의 성부(成否)
- 증언거부권과 위증죄 성부의 관계에 관한 판례연구
- 농지법의 무허가농지전용죄가 계속범(繼續犯)인지 여부
- 수사상 긴급체포 요건과 운용
- 형사보상에 있어 일액보상금의 제한
- 형사소송법 개정의 문제점
- 증거법 분야의 개정방안
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!